I recently had a
K-30 for a few weeks and after consistently having soft pictures realized through testing that I had FF issues. I compensated through AF micro adjustment, but all my lenses were are the far end of the adjustment scale which pointed me to the camera and gave me concern on ability to adjust future lenses. I really did love the camera, but returned it and just ordered a K-5 since I found it online for just over $700. I paid $640 for the k-30, so I thought the minimal uplift in price was worth the more professional feel of the K-5. That said, I'm aware of the AF issues regarding decisiveness of focus and tungsten low light complaints, so as I write this, I sit here and ponder if I should bite the bullet and go the extra $$ for a K-5 ii.
Questions:
- Are there serious enough issues with the K-5 that would make me question my investment?
- Beyond better AF, what are the other improvements in the K-5 ii that are worth the extra money? (Video?)
- Is the K-30 a better camera than the K-5 for stills due to improvements that make it closer to the K-5 ii? (Low light video on the K-30 was unusable)